A Look at Quantum &amp;amp;quot;Spookiness&amp;amp;quot;

The results of quantum theory were described as "spooky" by Drs.
Einstein, Podalsky, and Rosen because quantum theory seemed to reject
"objective reality". They believed that all observed effects must be
produced by "local" causality. Their conclusion resulted from their firm
belief that information could not travel faster than the velocity of light.
Indeed, if this were the case, quantum theory would indeed be "spooky".
Quantum theory required, for example, that "paired photons" maintain
polarizations which were opposite in direction . If the polarization angle
of one of the "paired photons" were changed, the polarization angle of the
other photon of the pair must instantaneously change to match. ("Paired
photons" are produced by the self annihilation of an artificial atom
composed of an electron and a positron. They are polarized in opposite
directions and are emitted in opposite directions. Their polarization angle
is, of course, random with respect to the external world.)

Since the "paired photons" are emitted in opposite directions, they
rapidly become separated in space. The required instantaneous coupling of
their polarization implies that information must travel at an infinite
velocity and, since these personages were firmly committed to the idea that
information could not be transmitted faster than the velocity of light, they
had to conclude that the process was "spooky" and required the existence of
"hidden variables". (These allegedly "hidden" variables are not necessarily
hidden, one of them for example, is the polarization coupling of "paired
photons".Since this coupling had been shown to propagate at an "impossible"
infinite velocity, it was necessary for orthodox physics to accept the idea
of "spookiness". If the effect were accepted without the idea of
"spookiness" it, the existence of an absolute
velocity reference frame for space (i.e.- the Aether) would have to be
accepted. Since this is currently dogmatically unacceptable, a problem
remained.

An alternative explanation, proposed by the "Copenhagen School" of
physicists asserted that there was no objective reality, there was only the
reality as seen by the observer. This interpretation led to Schroedinger's
Cat Paradox which asserted that a cat in a closed box that would be subject
to cyanide poisoning if the decay of a radioactive atom was detected by
instruments within the box. It was further asserted that, since the decay of
the atom and thus the death of the cat, the creature was both dead and alive
until an external observer opened the box and looked. The reasoning behind
this was the idea that an event does not occur until it is observed. This
does not seem to be an objectionable idea, per se, but the observation that
counts in this Paradox is the decay of the radioactive atom, not the
observation by an external observer. The cat is not both alive and dead
prior to his observation, it is one or the other, but not both. The fact
that the observer does not know is meaningless. It is only attributed as
having meaning as a result of intellectual sloppiness. Schroedinger's Cat
Paradox is not a paradox.

A different approach to resolving the "spookiness" of Quantum theory is
the idea of Parallel Universes. In this interpretation, each particle in the
Universe creates an unobservable twin every time it makes a quantum
"decision" The result is that each particle creates an unobservable
"Parallel Universe" at virtually every instant of time occurring since our
Universe began. When one considers the number of particles in the Universe,
the number of ways in which they can interact, and the number of instants of
time since the Universe began, the number of Universes which are required
under this theory is, incredibly, at least 10^160. What is equally
incredible is that each of these Universes contains the same amount of
energy as our own and each of its particles occupies the same space at the
same time as do its brothers. This interpretation seems to have a large
number of believers of high reputation. In spite of this, the writer has no
qualms about asserting that any physicist who would accept such a concept is
in the wrong line of work. I understand that Wal-Mart is hiring.

When one examines the concept that information cannot propagate faster
than the velocity of light one finds that it is based on the fact that
information is almost always encoded in the form of energy. Since the
Lorentz Transformation for energy is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 (the same as the
Lorentz Transformation for Length), it is obvious why information cannot
propagate faster than the velocity of light. At the velocity of light, the
Lorentz Transformation for Energy becomes infinite. The transformation
becomes imaginary! Information encoded in the form of energy certainly
cannot propagate faster that the velocity of light. When information is
encoded in the form of the polarization angles of "paired photons", however,
this limitation does not occur. Changing the polarization angle of a photon
does not change its energy. As a result, no energy transfer is involved in
changing their polarization angles. If one extracts the Lorentz
Transformation for Angle using the conventional Lorentz Transformations, one
find that this transformation is unity since angle is equal to a LENGTH
along an arc divided by the LENGTH of the radius of that arc. Accordingly,
the Lorentz Transformation for Angle becomes
((1-V^2/C^2)/(1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 or unity. One might conclude, therefore, that
the relativistic processes do not impose a velocity limit on the propagation
of the polarization angle of the "paired photons" and it is reasonable to
expect that velocity to be infinite. "Spookiness" is not needed.

Physicists have also concluded that even if information could be
transmitted by the use of "paired photons", that information could not be
decoded singe the polarization angle of the "paired photons" emitted by
their source was completely random. This apparent limitation is not
fundamental problem, it is a signal to noise ratio problem. The information
is actually being transmittted but it is swamped by the noise level of
background photons. If the singal to noise ratio of the transmission could
be sufficiently improved,communicating over a distance at a quasi-infinite
velocity would be found to be perfectly feasible. The most dangerous part of
this conclusion is that it would establish the existence of "absolute time"
and the existence of the classical Aether and would demolish the
hare-brained concept of "space-time". (For diagram seehttp://einsteinhoax.com/cf53.htm. Omit the 45 degree polarizers. They may
destroy the polarization coupling.)

The source material for this posting may be found inhttp://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); andhttp://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

'Layman questions and propositions here.\r\n\r\nSuppose the information you want to send through quantum entanglement, you encode through change delay lengths instead of actual spin/orientation changes of the entangled particles.\r\n\r\nFor instance, you have the 2 entangled particles in place. You disturb particle A, particle B matches accordingly. This signals beginning of transmission.\r\n\r\nNext particle, A\' and implicitely B\', you only change after 2 nanoseconds delay (excuse the interval if it is ludicrously small for technical capabilities, replace with whatever is achievable) to signal a 1 bit, or 1 nanosecond delay to signal a 0 bit.\r\n\r\nFixed length of conversation, 1 for initiation, 8*1024 for message after which we assume end of connection, unless further bits are transmitted/received, and await a new initiation bit. Needless to say, a 1s only message would take twice as long to send and receive than a nulls only message. And bandwith limitations withstanding because of encoding in delay instead of change of particle.\r\n\r\nKeep loading new entangled particles in both the transmitter and receiver, have a generator assembly standing by midway or something, with each collapse.\r\n\r\nEven though relativity dictates that the signal will travel into the past, at least it will travel more or less the same time in back in the past. This should work, refined enough and with large enough difference between the 1 bit delay and 0 bit delay to be able to absorb any irregularities that might result in a 1 bit delay being smaller than a 0 bit delay on arrival.\r\n\r\nAll that remains to grapple with is causality, which frankly doesn\'t matter all that much, in my view. It\'s not like you\'d manage to collapse the whole of creation by supposedly invalidating causality, or at least know you have done so afterwards. As long as the message gets through, what\'s it matter if the need for it never arose in the first place because of it getting through?\r\n\r\nI don\'t have the audacity to suppose I\'m the first to have thought of this, but has it been tried, so as to make FTL communications possible?'